Buzzed?

[Mike Granby]

So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
piston and it must be some sort of jet. The pilot then asks, nervously,
if the building he's flying over is a nuclear power plant, fearing, no
doubt, that he's been intercepted. Negative, the controller replies,
and still no-one knows what's going on. At this point, I have to leave
the freq for the next controller and so I miss the ending, but I wonder
if this was indeed an interception, but if so, wouldn't the controller
know? Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
"someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???

[Jay Honeck]

> Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
> at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
> "someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???

Creepy story, Mike. I hope you find out what happened!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...] I wonder
> if this was indeed an interception, but if so, wouldn't the controller
> know? Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
> at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
> "someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???

Don't know. But given that I've heard stories of pilots flying
lower-powered airplanes using other airplanes as simulated targets, it sure
wouldn't surprise me to find someone out there in a Mustang, or L-39, or
what-have-you doing the same thing (though, I assume the visual ID rules out
the L-39, in spite of that plane technically being a single :) ).

IMHO, the controller should have tracked the airplane to its landing, and
had an FAA inspector find out what was going on. Even better if the C172
pilot could get a good visual on it and identify the type (perhaps that did
happen later).

I would think that ATC would be informed regarding an intercept, and in any
case jet or no jet, I would expect the intercepting aircraft to be flying
slower than 250 knots. Sure doesn't sound like an intercept to me.

Pete

[Ted]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
> providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
> direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
> he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
> being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
> has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
> again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
> circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
> around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
> traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
> controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
> piston and it must be some sort of jet.

I wonder if it was one of these?

http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Planes.shtml

These guys tend to fly around in circles at 250kts.

[Ted]

"Ted" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
>> providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
>> direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
>> he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
>> being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
>> has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
>> again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
>> circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
>> around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
>> traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
>> controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
>> piston and it must be some sort of jet.
>
> I wonder if it was one of these?
>
> http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Planes.shtml
>
> These guys tend to fly around in circles at 250kts.
>

One day years ago after I did my runup in my little Cessna 152 and announced
my departure on runway 34 one of these little single seat buggers pulled out
onto the runway in front of me and took off. No waiting in line on the
taxiway for his turn, no radio calls, no nothing. I was quite annoyed at
his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use
about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially
vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight.

http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Bio.php?type=plane&bio=69&title=Miss%20B%20Haven%20Bio

[Stubby]

Mike Granby wrote:
> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
> providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
> direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
> he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
> being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
> has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
> again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
> circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
> around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
> traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
> controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
> piston and it must be some sort of jet. The pilot then asks, nervously,
> if the building he's flying over is a nuclear power plant, fearing, no
> doubt, that he's been intercepted. Negative, the controller replies,
> and still no-one knows what's going on. At this point, I have to leave
> the freq for the next controller and so I miss the ending, but I wonder
> if this was indeed an interception, but if so, wouldn't the controller
> know? Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
> at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
> "someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???
>
This sounds like a story for Art Bell.

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
> providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
> direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now."
<snip>

Reminds me of the opening sequence in the movie, "Close Encounters of the
Third Kind:"

[AirEast Pilot]: OK Center. AirEast 31. The traffic has turned. He's
heading right for my windshield. We're turning right...

(A CONFLICT ALERT sounds)

[Air Traffic Controller]: AirEast 31, descend and maintain flight level
three-one-zero. Break, Allegheny triple four. Turn right thirty degrees
immediately...

[AirEast Pilot}: AirEast 31, Roger. The traffic is quite luminous and is
exhibiting some non-ballistic motion. Over.

[Air Traffic Controller]: Roger, AirEast 31. Continue to descend at your
discretion, over.

[AirEast Pilot]: OK, Center. Center pilot's discretion is approved. The
traffic is approaching head-on...and really moving. Went by us, right now.
That was really close.

[Supervisor]: Ask them if they want to report officially.

[Air Traffic Controller]: TWA 517, do you want to report a UFO? Over.
(No response) TWA 517, do you want to report a UFO? Over.

[TWA Pilot]: Negative. We don't want to report.

[Air Traffic Controller]: AirEast 31, do you wish to report a UFO? Over.

[AirEast Pilot]: Negative. We don't want to report one of those either.

[Air Traffic Controller]: AirEast 31, do you wish to file a report of any
kind to us?

[AirEast Pilot]: I wouldn't know what kind of report to file, Center.

[Air Traffic Controller]: AirEast 31, me neither. I'll try to track traffic
and destination, over.


--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Ted wrote:

>>> I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight<<<

So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? <G>


I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
meant.

[gyoung]

Reminds me ...

a Long Time Ago, while attending summer school at Kansas State on my way
to Wright Field, I hooked up with the Ft Riley Aero Club who had -- 2
Aeronca Champs. So, from flying T-34s in which I earned my private
pilot's license, I get my tail wheel endorsement (that's another story)
- even before such endorsements were required.

Out joyriding one day with a friend, flying down the middle of Tuttle
Creek Reservoir (a 'big' lake for a Kansas boy), cruising at the
airplane's service ceiling (3000 feet or so), we notice that a 'big
machine' is really close off our left wing.

It's a CH-34 helicopter (http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/ch34002.jpg).
They want to talk, but -- the Champs don't have radios; they try hand
gestures but -- my training is Air Force, not Army. With them so close,
and us in our 'really small airplane', my passenger said later he
thought about getting out (there was -water- below us).

We fly down the lake in formation; it seems we're no more than 100 feet
apart. I'm flying as straight and level as I can, except -- when I
sense they are coming closer I turn slightly to the right.

After flying like this for five minutes or so, they raise their tail
rotor and fly ahead of us, and away. All I can think about at that
point is the possibility that this small tube & cloth Champ will get
tangled up in the downdraft above or below that big whirling rotor.

We return to the Junction City airport with no more excitement - we've
had enough for today.

Thanks, folks, for triggering the recall of great memories, and for
giving us a place to share them with an audience that appreciates the
living of them.

george

George Young
Seaford, VA

[[email protected]]

>>>Thanks, folks, for triggering the recall of great memories, and for
giving us a place to share them with an audience that appreciates the
living of them.<<<

Thanks for sharing George. Most of us here do appreciate it : )

[.Blueskies.]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
....
> IMHO, the controller should have tracked the airplane to its landing, and had an FAA inspector find out what was going
> on. Even better if the C172 pilot could get a good visual on it and identify the type (perhaps that did happen
> later).
>
> I would think that ATC would be informed regarding an intercept, and in any case jet or no jet, I would expect the
> intercepting aircraft to be flying slower than 250 knots. Sure doesn't sound like an intercept to me.
>
> Pete
>

Don't know what someone goofing off would be squawking altitude...

[Ted]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ted wrote:
>
>>>> I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport
>>>> procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off.
>>>> His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he
>>>> flew over my head and out of sight<<<
>
> So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? <G>
>
>
> I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
> meant.
>

Not a justification exactly but its hard to stay annoyed with someone who
just cut in front of you when a few moments later he is gone and out of
sight..

[Ross Richardson]

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was
doing low level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he
crashed and killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in
the marina.

Ross

Ted wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Ted wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport
>>>>>procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off.
>>>>>His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he
>>>>>flew over my head and out of sight<<<
>>
>>So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? <G>
>>
>>
>>I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
>>meant.
>>
>
>
> Not a justification exactly but its hard to stay annoyed with someone who
> just cut in front of you when a few moments later he is gone and out of
> sight..
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby > wrote:
> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
> providing with advisories.

Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).

A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!

That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
to military controllers :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Sam Spade]

Ted wrote:


>>
>
>
> One day years ago after I did my runup in my little Cessna 152 and announced
> my departure on runway 34 one of these little single seat buggers pulled out
> onto the runway in front of me and took off. No waiting in line on the
> taxiway for his turn, no radio calls, no nothing. I was quite annoyed at
> his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use
> about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially
> vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight.
>
> http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Bio.php?type=plane&bio=69&title=Miss%20B%20Haven%20Bio
>
Your initial contempt was certainly justified. Why did his hot
performance temper your contempt for his arrogant disregard of safety
rules and common courtesy?

[Sam Spade]

Ted wrote:


>
> Not a justification exactly but its hard to stay annoyed with someone who
> just cut in front of you when a few moments later he is gone and out of
> sight..
>
>
I don't get it. He is an asshole with bucks.

[Sam Spade]

Ross Richardson wrote:

> We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
> plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
> area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
> top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
> etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
> pattern altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was
> doing low level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he
> crashed and killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in
> the marina.
>
A death well deserved.

We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so,
ago in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a
passenger (who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed
their "hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent
19 year old young man asleep in his bedroom.

[Skylune]

by Sam Spade > Apr 18, 2006 at 06:36 AM


>
A death well deserved.

We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so,
ago in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a
passenger (who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed
their "hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent
19 year old young man asleep in his bedroom

<<

Well deserved indeed. That one in Calif was particularly bad, and with
the warm April weather, the carnage over the past several days was
predicatably high. At least 8 signficiant crashes since last Friday,
including into a school field in New Hampshire, the gainesville wreck, a
few more homebuilts, etc.

The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press, and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer will
be busy spinning bull****.

[Matt Barrow]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:JX51g.75088$bm6.40044@fed1read04...
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>> We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic plane.
>> Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the area. He
>> would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the top of
>> folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away, etc.
>> Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below pattern
>> altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was doing low
>> level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he crashed and
>> killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in the marina.
>>
> A death well deserved.
>
> We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so, ago
> in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a passenger
> (who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed their
> "hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent 19 year
> old young man asleep in his bedroom.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1

[Skylune]

Lucky break school was out. Imagine, a "strong wind" caused this crash.
Unbelievable.



A day earlier, plane incident could have been a tragedy
By LORNA COLQUHOUN
Union Leader Correspondent



HAVERHILL – Even if there had been a baseball game in progress late
Saturday morning, what came over the outfield could not have been more
surprising.

"There were about a dozen members of the baseball team who were prepping
the infield when a plane came low over the outfield," said school
principal Brent Walker, who got to the field at about the same time as
local emergency squads.

The plane, a 1946 Aeronca that had taken off a few moments before at the
Dean Memorial Airport, eventually came to rest near the playground. The
pilot, Keith Merrick, 60, of Post Mills, Vt., and his passenger, Randall
Trask, 58, of Randolph, Vt., were not injured, nor was anyone on the
ground.

Saturday was the first day of the April vacation for local students. Had
it happened at the same time the previous day, Walker said, there would
have been children playing on the swings.

"We're just glad no one was injured," he said.

Haverhill police Chief Jeff Williams said the boys were working on the
infield, getting it ready for the season, when the plane came over the
outfield, clipping a stop sign at the intersection of Airport Drive.

"It caught the left wing and came to rest on the playground," he said.
"Fortunately, no one was on the playground."

According to police reports, the two-seat plane, owned by the Upper Valley
Flying Club in Meriden, took off at about 11:40 a.m. from the airport,
which is located less than a mile from the middle school.

Initial indications are that a strong wind prevented the plane from
gaining altitude; the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1

"One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
airplane make a 65-degree bank"

Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
him?



--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"All this news about Terri Schiavo, and i JUST realized that when they
talk about her living in a persistent vegetative state, they don't mean
Florida." - Rone

[Greg Farris]

In article
utaviation.com>,
says...

>
>The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
>statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press, and
>place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer will
>be busy spinning bull****.
>


Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in your
estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles
and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam it
into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not happen
any time soon.

GF

[Skylune]

by Greg Farris > Apr 18, 2006 at 06:07 PM


In article
utaviation.com>,
says...

>
>The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
>statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press,
and
>place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer
will
>be busy spinning bull****.
>


Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in
your

estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles

and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam
it

into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by
the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the
killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not
happen
any time soon.

<<

Well, we shall see. If a 172 crashes into a house or business, killing
several people on the ground, there will be an outcry. Naturally, a small
plane will not result in hundreds of casualties, but if that one that
crashed on the sports field happened to hit kids on the ground.....

[Skylune]

Here's a listing since last week. Yes, it is springtime, and the little
planes are falling! One fell behind a house in Mass, another crashes into
a terminal in Fla, the one that crashed onto a school field in NH. There
were several other stories that had the links down, but things are off to
a roaring start in April!

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/14364851.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_local

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2006/04/18/breakingnews/20crash.txt

http://www.kxly.com/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=1753

http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/2648241.html

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/cececa4a4

http://www.wofl.com/_ezpost/data/39693.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/16/Citrus/Boy_severely_burned_i.shtml

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-0414planecrash,0,5290356.story

http://www.klbk.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=1547

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0413PlaneCrash13-ON.html

http://www.townonline.com/melrose/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=470880

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604120309

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1
>
> "One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
> airplane make a 65-degree bank"
>
> Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
> him?
>

Damn good eyesight?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1
>>
>> "One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
>> airplane make a 65-degree bank"
>>
>> Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
>> him?
>>
>
>Damn good eyesight?

I could have used him when I worked on a survey crew.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
---------------- hit any user to continue ----------------

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Lucky break school was out. Imagine, a "strong wind" caused this crash.
> Unbelievable.
<...>
>By LORNA COLQUHOUN
>Union Leader Correspondent
<snip>.
>
> Initial indications are that a strong wind prevented the plane from
> gaining altitude; the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>
>

I'm with ya Skylune.
I find Ms. Colquhoun's claim that "the wind prevented the plane from gaining
altitude" pretty hard to believe too.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Richard]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby > wrote:
>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
>> providing with advisories.
>
> Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
> home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
> service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
> by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
> traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).
>
> A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
> looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
> of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!
>
> That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
> to military controllers :-)
>


Reminds me of a story I read about the folks having their groundspeeds
checked by ATC as a bragging right...until the SR-71 at altitude
requested the same thing. Heh.

Richard

[Dave]

Calibrated eyeball, the left one... try it, keep UR tongue in the
right side of UR mouth...

Dave



On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:15:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1
>>
>> "One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
>> airplane make a 65-degree bank"
>>
>> Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
>> him?
>>
>
>Damn good eyesight?
>

[Dave]

....and don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind...

There is a song there someplace....

Dave


On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:08:50 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby > wrote:
>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
>> providing with advisories.
>
>Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
>home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
>service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
>by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
>traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).
>
>A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
>looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
>of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!
>
>That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
>to military controllers :-)

[Morgans]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> I'm with ya Skylune.

Capt! You don't need to be agreeing with this nutjob, even if he does say
something right, once every 2 months. (or six)

Jerks like him do nothing to make our flying any easier, or better.

Next time, wait for someone else to say it, or say it yourself,without
referencing him or his post, please. ;-)

In other works, please don't feed the trolls! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1
>>>
>>> "One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
>>> airplane make a 65-degree bank"
>>>
>>> Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
>>> him?
>>>
>>
>>Damn good eyesight?
>
> I could have used him when I worked on a survey crew.
>

Kinda like the (very) old Johnny Badmouth joke, "Okay, just a c*#% hair to
the right...".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Greg Farris]

What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could have
been". Small planes crash every day, and by now we know what the result is.
And it's bad enough too - we have to keep working to maintain the improvement
we've already registered. But - "if everything had been different from what
it really was" if for some reason this particular one had been unlike the
last thousand or so, then just think of how bad it could have been...

"If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of course no
one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to put it,
"a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large, empty
field". There may be an element of luck in that there were no injuries, but
it's also because the pilot did what we are all trained to do. A majority
(yes, over 50%) of light aircraft accidents produce no significant injuries,
and minimal property damage. The number of innocents on the ground injured by
these accidents is so small it is statistically inexistent.

Trees fall on moving cars every day, usually with dramatic results. People
are struck by lightning every day, and hundreds are slaughtered daily on the
nation's roads, yet Skylunes and journalists spend their waking hours
dreaming about how bad a GA accident "could be" someday, somewhere - reverie
completely unsupported by a massive and comprehensive statistical record.

GF

[Marty Shapiro]

Richard > wrote in news:NMadnRPeD6Y3CtjZRVn-
:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
>>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
>>> providing with advisories.
>>
>> Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
>> home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
>> service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
>> by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
>> traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).
>>
>> A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
>> looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
>> of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!
>>
>> That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
>> to military controllers :-)
>>
>
>
> Reminds me of a story I read about the folks having their groundspeeds
> checked by ATC as a bragging right...until the SR-71 at altitude
> requested the same thing. Heh.
>
> Richard

That's from the book "Sled Driver" by Brian Shul. He recounts a
succession of requests for ground speed readouts progressing from a Cessna
to a Twin Beech to an F-18 and finally the "Sled".

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-18, Skylune > wrote:
> Well, we shall see. If a 172 crashes into a house or business, killing
> several people on the ground, there will be an outcry. Naturally, a small
> plane will not result in hundreds of casualties, but if that one that
> crashed on the sports field happened to hit kids on the ground.....

Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-18, Skylune > wrote:
> Here's a listing since last week.

What is your point? We all know the NTSB website address and can read it
for ourselves.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Skylune]

by "Morgans" > Apr 18, 2006 at 10:23 PM


"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> I'm with ya Skylune.

Capt! You don't need to be agreeing with this nutjob, even if he does
say

something right, once every 2 months. (or six)


<<

Well, the AOPA Truth Squad may be difficult for you to hear, but the truth
about
the subsidies to GA and the political nonaccountability of the FAA are
well known to many people out there,
even if you dismiss them under the kool-aid influence of the AOPA.

I assume you think all "civilians" with complaints about GA are "nut
jobs."

[Morgans]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
> truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
> Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
> driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
> into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
crashes. Let's ban them!
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...

>As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
>crashes. Let's ban them!


Well, to be exact "busses" have never killed anyone, at least not directly.
They can lead to pregnancies though, which at school age are not socially
constructive. Ban them? It'll never happen!

GF

[Skylune]

by "Morgans" > Apr 19, 2006 at 10:41 AM


"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
> truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
> Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
> driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
> into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
crashes. Let's ban them


<<

Your points are well taken. But, reality bites: if a small plane crash
burns down a house or kills kids in a playground, there will be an uproar.
This is because there is alot of antipathy towards GA, and because someone
flying for kicks that accidently causes death and mayhem will receive
greater criticism than a school bus crash. School busses are necessary.
Flying around in a cessna for fun is not.

[Greg Farris]

In article
utaviation.com>,
says...

>School busses are necessary.
>Flying around in a cessna for fun is not.
>


School busses are not "necessary" - but they are statistically
inevitable! For those involved they are far more fun than flying around in a
Cessna.

[Everett M. Greene]

Marty Shapiro > writes:
> Richard > wrote:
> > Dylan Smith wrote:
> >> On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby > wrote:
> >>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
> >>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
> >>> providing with advisories.
> >>
> >> Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
> >> home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
> >> service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
> >> by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
> >> traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).
> >>
> >> A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
> >> looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
> >> of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!
> >>
> >> That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
> >> to military controllers :-)
> >
> >
> > Reminds me of a story I read about the folks having their groundspeeds
> > checked by ATC as a bragging right...until the SR-71 at altitude
> > requested the same thing. Heh.
>
> That's from the book "Sled Driver" by Brian Shul. He recounts a
> succession of requests for ground speed readouts progressing from a Cessna
> to a Twin Beech to an F-18 and finally the "Sled".

At the other extreme, I heard a story about a flight
from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area heading west IFR
one night for somewhere in the Dakotas. They'd been
in the air for about half an hour when the controller
informed them that their groundspeed was about 10 MPH
and asked their intentions. The pilot decided make
the flight another day.

[Wouldn't the MTI suppress the target? But let's not
let facts interfere with the telling of a good story.]

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-19, Everett M. Greene > wrote:
> At the other extreme, I heard a story about a flight
> from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area heading west IFR
> one night for somewhere in the Dakotas.
[...]
> [Wouldn't the MTI suppress the target? But let's not
> let facts interfere with the telling of a good story.]

Presumably not because they were not a passive radar target, but had a
Mode-C squawk - he was IFR after all. (If ATC radar supressed slow
targets with a Mode-C squawk, they'd have difficulty handling
helicopters)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could
> have
> been".
....
No kidding

> "If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of course
> no
> one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to put
> it,
> "a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large,
> empty
> field".

See below for a first hand narration covering exactly that situation (It
wasn't me, BTW)

Another really funny (as in funny stupid) about the article that Mr. Loone
quoted was the claim that the wind had prevented the aircraft from
climbing - WTF, Over? Was the reporter on drugs or just plain stupid? fwiw,
per the FAA accident report:

WEATHER: HIE 1552Z AUTO 23008KT 200V270 10SM BKN029 BKN044 17/08 A2937

That's not even enough wind to fly a kite.

Anyhow, as promised, what another pilot did when faced with an engine
failure on a school day (when all else fails, merge):

Begin Quote:

I was talking to Detroit Metro tower, circling over a densely populated site
8 miles east of Detroit Metro (DTW) airport in a borrowed airplane when the
engine started to run rough. After application of carburetor heat, the
engine ran slightly better, then rough again. Full throttle and mixture
were applied to no effect. It was at that time that I announced to the
Metro tower cab that I was not able to maintain altitude and was going to
have to "set it down". They gave me the wind data and said they would
inform emergency services about the situation. I was only 1500 feet above
the ground and because the Cessna 152 has at a glide ratio of 7:1 which
yields 2 miles in range and 90 seconds to touchdown although the engine was
intermittently producing some power which helped to extend my glide
somewhat. In my view to the South West were several options: 1st a school
yard, too small and what about the kids? 2nd and further away was an
industrial area with a snow covered field. Snow covered fields may look good
from afar but what lurks beneath? Nonetheless that was my goal with I-75
below me along the way i traveled Southwest bound with the vehicular
traffic, and into the wind. Aware that I wouldn't make the 2nd option I
concentrated on I-75. Over the freeway I settled earthward, lower and lower
until I became aware of huge power transmission lines paralleling my flight
path, the tops of which were now at my altitude, and 50 yards to my right.
Also prominent in view were the tops of cars and trucks but more
importantly, open areas of concrete looming closer below. Since my airspeed
was roughly equal to the speed of the moving traffic I was able to adjust my
relative position for and aft pushing and pulling on the yoke to drop into
an opening between the vehicles and eventually settled down onto the
pavement in the flair between the cars. I was careful to let the Cessna
roll as far as I could so that the traffic behind could avoid hitting me.
The Engine had stopped some time ago.

I got lucky because there was not a scratch on the aircraft, nor any fender
benders in any of the 6 miles of traffic which had eventually accumulated
behind me.

After getting out of the aircraft the first eye contact I made with and
individual was a woman passing by in a sport utility vehicle flipping me
off! To her I say, in the words of Steve Martin, "Well Excuse Me!!!"

End Quote


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Skylune]

by "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> Apr 19, 2006
at 06:24 PM


"Greg Farris" <farris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e24pib$2et4$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could

> have
> been".
....
No kidding

> "If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of
course

> no
> one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to
put
> it,
> "a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large,

> empty
> field".

See below for a first hand narration covering exactly that situation (It
wasn't me, BTW)

Another really funny (as in funny stupid) about the article that Mr.
Loone

quoted was the claim that the wind had prevented the aircraft from
climbing - WTF, Over? Was the reporter on drugs or just plain stupid?
fwiw,
...

<<

Actually, the reporter was quoting the pilot who claimed the little plane
was just overcome by the wind. Therefore, the pilot would be the stupid
one.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Hmm.

I was "intercepted" Tuesday around Fort Wayne.

I was IFR, and got a traffic alert for a VFR target indicating 500 feet
higher. I got a glimpse of him as he passed behind me.

Then the controller told me that he was at my 7 o'clock, turning to
follow me. I looked around and saw his nose pointing right at me.

He contined to chase me - in my blind spot, above my back window.
Jerk.

I descended, and finally caught sight of him again just ahead and over
my right wing. I couldn't see his registration number.

He finally turned right and away. I was 99% sure he had me in sight
the whole time, but that's 1 percent short of acceptable.

[Morgans]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote

> He contined to chase me - in my blind spot, above my back window.
> Jerk.

The sad part is that he probably didn't see a thing wrong with what he was
doing. After all, he was just seeing whose plane was faster, right? ;-(
--
Jim in NC

[John]

Ross Richardson wrote:

> We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
> plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
> area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
> top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
> etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
> pattern altitude.

I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already flying.

[Ted]

"John" > wrote in message ...
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>> We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
>> plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
>> area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
>> top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
>> etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
>> pattern altitude.
>
> I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an
> ordinance
> regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
> government
> that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and
> surface,
> but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already
> flying.
>
Let me turn the question around. Where did you get the idea that you don't
have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Ted" > said:
>"John" > wrote in message ...
>> Ross Richardson wrote:
>> regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
>> government that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the
>> runway and surface, but I'm confused how they could attempt to
>> regulate airplanes already flying.
>>
>Let me turn the question around. Where did you get the idea that you don't
>have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

From the federal government, who gave exclusive regulatory power over
aircraft in the air to the FAA. No local law applies to aircraft in the
air, period.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It's just a cardboard model. Fake security"
"Jeez, that's a first for Microsoft"
- User Friendly

[Jose]

> Where did you get the idea that you don't
> have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

Whenever there is a preemption or lack of jurisdiction.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ross Richardson]

I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating
and came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in
the A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

John wrote:

> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>
>>We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
>>plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
>>area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
>>top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
>>etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
>>pattern altitude.
>
>
> I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an ordinance
> regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local government
> that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and surface,
> but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already flying.
>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating and
> came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in the
> A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

Is he also an aviation attorney?

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.



>
> John wrote:
>
>> Ross Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
>>>plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
>>>area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
>>>top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
>>>etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
>>>pattern altitude.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an
>> ordinance
>> regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
>> government
>> that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and
>> surface,
>> but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already
>> flying.
>>
>>
>>

[Jose]

> Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
> FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
> fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
> > FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
> > fly (pardon the pun) in court.
>
> If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
> agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
> local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
> agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Define "fast"?
Define "low"?
Does a missed approach meet these definitions?
Isn't a low approach, by its very name, a violation?
How about a balked landing?
I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

[Jose]

> Define "fast"?
> Define "low"? [...]
> I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

It's not my ordinance. I did not say it was well written (I have the
same opinion as you that way) but I do say that it is possible to limit
aviation, despite federal provisions, through contract law.

No, I am not a lawyer.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating
> and came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in
> the A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

Interesting. I wonder if it would stand up in court. I doubt it, but
who knows?

Matt

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jose > said:
>> Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
>> FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
>> fly (pardon the pun) in court.
>
>If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally

What agreement?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
About Windows XP, seen in Forbes Magazine ..
"...the world's richest Chief Software Architect continues a record for
design elegance unmatched since the Yugo."

[Jose]

> What agreement?

This one:

>> We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
have accepted whatever follows.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> What agreement?
>
>
> This one:
>
>>> We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.
>
>
> A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
> and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
> reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
> says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
> constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
> have accepted whatever follows.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.


Matt

[Robert Chambers]

Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit! :)


Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>
>>> What agreement?
>>
>>
>>
>> This one:
>>
>>>> We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.
>>
>>
>>
>> A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
>> and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
>> reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign
>> that says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
>> constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there,
>> you have accepted whatever follows.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
> contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
> means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
> wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.
>
>
> Matt

[Jose]

> If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.

Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law :) that has nothing to
do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
the difference? $300/hr to get a guess. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction
>> of the FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but
>> it'll never fly (pardon the pun) in court.
>
>
> If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
> agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
> local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
> agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

No, because it is unenforceable.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to
>> murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that
>> to be entering into a valid contract.
>
>
> Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law :) that has nothing to
> do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
> contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
> null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
> the difference? $300/hr to get a guess. :)

The law isn't worth the paper it's written on, or the sign it's screen
printed on, it's unenforceable.

[Matt Whiting]

Robert Chambers wrote:
> Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit! :)

I thought folks might like that example ... which, if course, is
completely hypothetical!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to
>> murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that
>> to be entering into a valid contract.
>
>
> Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law :) that has nothing to
> do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
> contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
> null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
> the difference? $300/hr to get a guess. :)

Yes, that is my point. It is illegal for a local government to attempt
to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government, therefore
buying fuel here does not constitute a contract.

Matt

[Jose]

> It is illegal for a local government to attempt to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government

Is it legal for a citizen to do the same? "I will let you drive my car
as long as you don't fly an airplane into this airport."

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:01:55 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> [...] I wonder
>> if this was indeed an interception, but if so, wouldn't the controller
>> know? Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
>> at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
>> "someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???
>
>Don't know. But given that I've heard stories of pilots flying
>lower-powered airplanes using other airplanes as simulated targets, it sure
>wouldn't surprise me to find someone out there in a Mustang, or L-39, or
>what-have-you doing the same thing (though, I assume the visual ID rules out
>the L-39, in spite of that plane technically being a single :) ).
>

Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.
Of course like the traffic cop you never saw them until they were
there. Having a pair of jets pass 100 yards off each wing tip and 500
MPH plus it certainly startling. Often you could count on them not
being a single pair and if not loaded with ordinance they sometimes
.... never mind.

Down in the Grailing area you end up flying between a gunnery range on
the west and a bombing range on the east. It can sometimes be quite a
show from 5000 feet, but the planes now days give us civvies a wide
berth. (usually)

If you go wayyyy back I was up at the brides when the two F-102s flew
under it. As I understand they ended up grounded. I missed the time
Arthur Godfrey flew his plane under it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>IMHO, the controller should have tracked the airplane to its landing, and
>had an FAA inspector find out what was going on. Even better if the C172
>pilot could get a good visual on it and identify the type (perhaps that did
>happen later).
>
>I would think that ATC would be informed regarding an intercept, and in any
>case jet or no jet, I would expect the intercepting aircraft to be flying
>slower than 250 knots. Sure doesn't sound like an intercept to me.
>
>Pete
>

[Roger]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:57:18 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00210&key=1
>>>>
>>>> "One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
>>>> airplane make a 65-degree bank"
>>>>
>>>> Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
>>>> him?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Damn good eyesight?
>>
>> I could have used him when I worked on a survey crew.
>>
>
>Kinda like the (very) old Johnny Badmouth joke, "Okay, just a c*#% hair to
>the right...".

That is a royal *** hair, sir!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Roger > said:
>Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
>27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.

There was a case 5 or 10 years ago when a couple of fighters decided to
play "practice intercept" on a commerical airliner that had been cleared
through their MOA, not realizing that airliners have TCAS now. The
airliner reacted rather violently to the RA, and now the military doesn't
do that any more.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I kept the faith and I kept voting/Not for the iron fist but for the helping
hand/For theirs is a land with a wall around it/And mine is a faith in my
fellow man" --Billy Bragg

[Roger]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:59:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Roger > said:
>>Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
>>27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.
>
>There was a case 5 or 10 years ago when a couple of fighters decided to
>play "practice intercept" on a commerical airliner that had been cleared
>through their MOA, not realizing that airliners have TCAS now. The
>airliner reacted rather violently to the RA, and now the military doesn't
>do that any more.

Now that would have been a ride worth paying for<:-)) IF you had your
seat belt fastened. I hope they had lots of lucn bags.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:42:32 GMT, "Ted" > wrote:

>
>"Ted" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
>>> controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
>>> providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
>>> direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
>>> he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
>>> being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
>>> has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
>>> again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
>>> circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
>>> around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
>>> traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
>>> controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
>>> piston and it must be some sort of jet.
>>
>> I wonder if it was one of these?
>>
>> http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Planes.shtml
>>
>> These guys tend to fly around in circles at 250kts.
>>
>
>One day years ago after I did my runup in my little Cessna 152 and announced
>my departure on runway 34 one of these little single seat buggers pulled out
>onto the runway in front of me and took off. No waiting in line on the
>taxiway for his turn, no radio calls, no nothing. I was quite annoyed at
>his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use
>about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially
>vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight.
>
>http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Bio.php?type=plane&bio=69&title=Miss%20B%20Haven%20Bio

A couple of years back I was headed to Muncie In with a couple of
friends riding along. We were passing Ft Wayne at roughly 9000.
Approach had us looking for some F-16s doing touch and gos. They made
three complete circuits from way above us, down to the runway, a touch
and then a darn near vertical climb that must have been to 15 or
20,000, then a steep descent (essentially a split s) and back to the
runway. We were passing through at just shy of 200 MPH and they made
those 3 complete circuits just while we transited the area.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

>> What agreement?
>
> This one:
>
>>> We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.
>

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...

[Ross Richardson]

The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was
a bi-plane showing off that darn near hit a hangar. There was a local
tenant that decided to do a low (25') pass down the runway the same day.
This with all the YE events going on. Not a good day. Then I told you of
the guy that did low high speed passes in his areobatic plane
interfering with other traffic. Well, he got killed doing low aerobatics
over a marina. The city enacted the ordinance. Like I said before, the
city attorney is a pilot. Missed approaches and balked landings would
not exceed the limits of the definition.

Ross

Judah wrote:

> Jose > wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
> @newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>>>What agreement?
>>
>>This one:
>>
>>
>>>>We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.
>>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
> the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Ross Richardson > said:
>The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
>"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
>continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
>fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was

Wouldn't matter what the fine is - any competent aviation attorney could
get the idiot off on the grounds that the airport has no jurisdiction once
you're in the air.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
> "buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
> continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the fine
> it.

As they have no jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if they do it once, or fifty
times.

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Ross Richardson > said:
>>The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
>>"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
>>continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
>>fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was
>
> Wouldn't matter what the fine is - any competent aviation attorney could
> get the idiot off on the grounds that the airport has no jurisdiction once
> you're in the air.

And it doesn't matter if they do it once or "continually" (maybe he's doing
loop-de-loops over the airport).

[Skylune]

by Greg Farris <farris@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 19, 2006 at 09:40 AM


What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could
have
been". Small planes crash every day, and by now we know what the result
is.
And it's bad enough too - we have to keep working to maintain the
improvement
we've already registered. But - "if everything had been different from
what
it really was" if for some reason this particular one had been unlike the

last thousand or so, then just think of how bad it could have been...

"If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of course
no
one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to put
it,
"a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large,
empty
field". There may be an element of luck in that there were no injuries,
but....

GF


<<

And how is this different from the "what could have been" statements made
by the reporters concerning the plane that crashed into an empty school
field?

AOPA, on the UAV crash:

"This crash highlights the safety concerns we've voiced all along," said
Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "The FAA
should not permit UAV operations until they are certified to the same level
of safety as manned aircraft.

"Thankfully, in this accident no one in the air or on the ground was hurt.
But just think that if a pilot had been flying legally under the TFR and
the UAV hit the aircraft from behind and above — the pilot would have had
no chance to see and avoid the uncontrolled UAV."

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Apr 27, 2006 at 06:52 AM


Whiny, ranting guy from NH wrote:


I think a good example of a "nut job" would be someone with an axe to
grind who has limited information on a subject, makes unsubstantiated
claims ad nauseum, and continues to beat the drum to a limited audience
thinking he's actually making a difference.

<<

King: I agree with you, except that Phil Boyer does not hail from New
Hampshire.

[Kingfish]

>>>King: I agree with you, except that Phil Boyer does not hail from New
Hampshire.<<<

LOL. Funny.

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Apr 27, 2006 at 10:33 AM


>>>King: I agree with you, except that Phil Boyer does not hail from New
Hampshire.<<<

LOL. Funny

<<

;-). And I am going flying tomorrow in my bud's 172! Should be an
awesome VFR flying day. We may head over to Block Island, RI for lunch.
Unfortunately, I think it is still too cool for the babes in bikinis to be
out in abundance....

[Kingfish]

>>>And I am going flying tomorrow in my bud's 172! Should be an
awesome VFR flying day. We may head over to Block Island, RI for
lunch.
Unfortunately, I think it is still too cool for the babes in bikinis to
be
out in abundance.... <<<

Manchester to Block Island for lunch? How decadent. I hope your pal is
up to speed on his XC flying.
Gotta agree about the bikini weather though. Wait until after Memorial
Day at least.